Southwark request for comments re Covid-19 / healthier streets

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

I will try to respond to all these points as well as I can.

first mate

I'm still in the process of compiling the results but over 80% of respondents on each street was supportive of the proposals.

The Our Healthy Streets consultation was a much wider project covering lots of Dulwich Village and parts of Goose Green. It did not cover the section north of East Dulwich Grove though so when we did our impromptu survey it made sense to cover each street where measured were being proposed.

Rockets

Good point about pavement widening - this is also currently being considered. I think I posted about it a while back but it has been delayed for some reason. Not sure why - trying to get to the bottom of this.

The decision on MG south is due for June 15th or thereabouts and it looks highly likely that it will be approved. I am told that everything is in place to begin the works once it is approved. I know much more about MG South because it falls entirely within Goose Green. Normally decisions are only put to Cabinet Members when they are relatively likely to be approved but I do not want to comment the likelihood of those in Champion Hill or Dulwich Village as they will be largely shaped by the councillors in those wards.

As for my political beliefs - yes you're of course right that my decisons are shaped by my political ideas. This is only to be expected. But I disagree that my position on Controlled Parking Zones or permeable filters are a direct and simple consequence of ideology at the expense of residents' concerns. People's views on the CPZ had very little to do with their voting intentions, and everything to do with which street they live on (see https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/controlled-parking-in-east-dulwich). If support for permeable filters is Marxist then East Dulwich is a lot redder than I thought!

Spartacus

I am afraid not - there will be a monitoring and feedback period after implementation to assess whether they should continue and whether they should be amended. But the intention of TfL is that these be emergency measures that need to be implemented quickly.

ed_pete

Yes emergency services need to be consulted before any measures like this are put in.

Hope you're all having a good weekend - shame about the weather eh!

Best wishes,

James

[first mate]

James, thank you for your reply but the 80% is meaningless unless we know how many households of a total within each street that figure represents. It is not clear either if you are counting households or individuals? How many streets were included in your Councillor survey?

Did you keep to the same method as for CPZ, that is a majority within a street? To understand just how much support there is, it is important to have this detail.

[jamesmcash]

I do not know off the top of my head how many households or individuals live on those streets but I have acknowledged that most did not respond to the survey.

The survey specifically targeted the 3 (or 4) streets where measures were being proposed but others could comment too if they wanted.

Yes, we looked at each street's responses separately. As I say, all had over 80% in support.

Best wishes

James

[Spartacus]

James so the healthy streets consultation is a sham then as whilst it's still going on, you are planning on implementing some of the measures in it regardless

Not exactly democratic or fair is it ?

[first mate]

So just to be clear, those that responded did not represent a majority of households or individuals within each street, but of the minority that did respond 80% were in favour? Or have I misunderstood?

[eastdulwichlocal99]

I think the most important thing to remember for those on either side of this issue is that it?s currently a temporary measure. This will allow everyone to experience the pros/cons and if necessary changes can be made.

What better way to deem if it works than to trial it?

[first mate]

If only we could believe that.

[EDAus]

Melbourne Grove South is being given a barrier to stop all traffic not a filter (stops speeding etc), a sensible choice was available for this location and was rejected.

The best thing people can do is email Richard and Dale with their objections as soon as possible:

[email protected]

Lead member: Councillor Richard Livingstone, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency

[email protected]

Contact: Dale Foden, Head of Highways Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7525 2045.

[Rockets]

James,

Your political ideology shapes everything you do. Take your twitter feed. Today you have been tweeting anti-police rhetoric.

Let?s look at what you have been tweeting.....

The Youness Bentahar video. Why would you decide to tweet that today? The video first appeared in July 2019 and you decide to tweet on the day of the BLM marches. Why? I learned of it when Graham Hunter Sky?s Spanish football correspondent retweeted it and you got national exposure (and, I am sorry for you, a lot of right-wing bots that come with that).

Your tweet claimed that this was an example of police brutality yet if you had done your research before tweeting you would have been able to find Youness? own video that showed he was asked to move his car (which was parked illegally - yours and other council?s rules, including those where he was parked, are quite clear that you cannot park a car that close to a junction even if you have a disabled badge - as he did). In Youness?s video the police made it quite clear that he could move his car or face arrest. Moving the car was by far the best course of least resistance but he decided not to, and after numerous warnings the police moved in to arrest him and he resisted. His video stops when the police try to cuff him and then we cut to the video you tweeted showing the police wrestling with someone who doesn?t want to be arrested. That isn?t brutality, that appears to be the police trying to do their job with someone who steadfastly does not want to comply.

Talk to any police officer and they will tell you that if someone doesn?t want to be arrested then it will take 4 or 5 police to actually subdue them to a point where they can be arrested. All the police want to do in those situations is to get an arm behind the back to be able to cuff the assailant - a lot harder to do than you think when someone doesn?t want to comply. In other situations those hellbent on disorder often use this as part of their strategy...resist arrest and you take 4/5 police out of the situation.

Later this evening you tweeted your disgust at the video of police using horses on Whitehall to disperse those who were determined to cause disturbance at the BLM march. Thousands of people marched peacefully to show their support to the BLM movement, yet a few were hell bent on disturbance around Downing Street, as they had been on previous nights.

Your tweet said that protests aren?t safe if horses charge into innocent people...but they weren?t charging were they? The video you retweeted showed horses barely cantering to disperse the crowd who were causing a disturbance (Let me be clear though that horses are used by the police to disperse crowds as 1) people are scared of horses as horses don?t care what they tread on and 2) you can?t sue a horse or have it fired should it tread on you) and then one of the horses gets spooked by something that is thrown at it causing it to bolt and badly injure its rider.

Yet you respond to a police tweet that the horse was uninjured that you have ?solidarity with this conscientious objector - refusing to partake in violence?.

I am just wondering what compels someone to tweet this stuff out? You are an elected representative - or was this tweet only meant for Labour Party members? ;-) This screams to me that you are constantly letting your political ideology get in the way of rational analysis and I can?t understand why you don?t apply a pragmatic approach to what is actually happening, and this is why I accuse you of doing the same in every aspect of Goose Green and East Dulwich decision making.

Anyway, politics would be nothing without differing views and discourse therein so I hope you have a good weekend...despite the weather!

[KidKruger]

Come on, man.

If you're asked a straight question regarding figures, just find the figures.

If decisions based on figures are impacting a community they need to be available and substantiated.

If the figures can't be found ("off the top of your head", or otherwise), how can decisions be made based on them ?

Or do the Council suddenly 'lose' the figures after forcing through their agenda ?

I don't think so.

This stuff just sounds perverse.

If in doubt, please resort to basic concept of right and wrong.

jamesmcash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do not know off the top of my head how many

> households or individuals live on those streets

> but I have acknowledged that most did not respond

> to the survey.

>

> The survey specifically targeted the 3 (or 4)

> streets where measures were being proposed but

> others could comment too if they wanted.

>

> Yes, we looked at each street's responses

> separately. As I say, all had over 80% in

> support.

>

> Best wishes

> James

[Spartacus]

Rockets as James is a teacher, you have to question what views about the police teachers expresses in front of young vulnerable children based on the comments in his latest tweets ?

[Abe_froeman]

I think the most important thing to remember for those on either side of this issue is that it?s currently a temporary measure under an experimental traffic order and as such can be made permanent without any requirement to consult the public, let alone take into account any objections.

You can be sure that this barrier is going in and will never be removed.

[dulwichquine]

I've just read the proposals for Dulwich Village junction. Has big knock on effect for nearby residential streets. Seems pretty clear the council is just pushing through the changes it originally wanted to do through the Healthy Streets initiative even though the results have still not been published. Temp junction closures will become permanent, despite the views of local residents.

[first mate]

No if we put up a really big fight they won?t. This really is time for the community to get vocal and first port of call should be councillors. They have to represent us. Perhaps we should push for a large public meeting, maybe an online one.

I am tired of this Labour Council behaving in such a paternalistic manner. They need to start listening properly or we will end up in a mess.

[slarti b]

dulwichquine Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just read the proposals for Dulwich Village junction. Has big knock on effect for nearby residential streets.

> Seems pretty clear the council is just pushing through the changes it originally wanted to do through the

>"Healthy "Streets initiative even though the results have still not been published. Temp junction closures

> will become permanent, despite the views of local residents.

I completely agree and think it is outrageous but sadly pretty much par for the course for the council and, especially the DV Ward councillors.

They seem very happy to publish highly misleading statistics in support of their aims and to put the interests of external pressure groups above those of their constituents. When you look at the documents for the "temporary" COVID closures you can see they are supporting, not just the closure of the DV junction, but also the closure of Eynella and the Townley\EDG junctions. Effectively just trying to get the OHS proposals through without scrutiny or agreeement from local residents.

The councillors are of course supported by pressure groups like Safe Routes to School who largely act on behalf of the local Independent schools. Ironically, these create much of the local traffic pressures that cause so many problems for residents who actually live in the area.

It makes you wonder who the councillors are actually representing, their constituents or pressure groups such as SRS and Southwark Cyclists?

[Bicknell]

I saw an email from one of the councillors that said 55% want the junction closed.

If thats true half the people want it closed, and the other half doesn't. Brexit all over again. You'd thnk we'd learn.

[goldilocks]

Think it was something like 37% against - the rest must have been indifferent (but indifferent and bothered responding to the consultation rather than everyone who was indifferent and didn't respond!).

[slarti b]

We know that various pressure groups not from the area were encouraging their menbers to respond and telling what what to say. A real "rent a mob" approach to an on line consultation.

So,if you want to find out what the local residents think, the results need to be split into those from the cnisultation area and those outside it. The council have all teh details to do this.

And any figures from the local councillors need ot be treated with scepticism unless you can see the underlying data. They are the ones who were quite happy to claim a 47% increase in traffic since their previous botched remodelling of the junction when the trend was actually a decrease.

[Abe_froeman]

You say that Slarti but it would have been quite easy to pretend you were from the area on that "council" questionnaire on googledocs or whatever it was

[first mate]

Southwark cyclists encouraged its members, wherever they live in the borough, to request CPZ in ED.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't like CPZs because they just entrench the idea that public space should primarily be used for the purposes of driving and long term car storage. I would prefer that we low traffic neighbourhoods, segregated cycle routes, and a much greater proportion of public space given over to people rather than cars.

If we're going to create healthy, happy and sustainable communities at some point we have to stop giving up to 80% of the available public / communal space to motor vehicles.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lot of good things happening in Lambeth and Hackney in terms of low traffic neighbourhoods

[dank4000]

It?s so fantastic to see Southwark putting in steps to lower driving and make safe streets for children to play and for everyone else to be able to walk without having to huff the fumes of peoples private cars. Seems like traffic is already (understandably) so making safe alternatives has to be the way forward.

[dank4000]

Just reading the rest of this thread...

Why does everyone seem to want the status quo of traffic and pollution everywhere? I don?t get it.

[slarti b]

rahrah You can have low traffic neighbourhoods without completely blocking junctions.